More Police Brutality

Drive by posting here of even more police brutality, oppressing the peeps.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/5nUw_g6Ij2A[/youtube]

7 comments

  1. 1

    :em01: That is a very cool thing to do.

  2. 2
    Sparky Tolmeister growls and barks:

    How dare those Deputies try to put some happiness and light into this dying child’s painfully grim life. WE PAY HIS SALARY (if we’re not on EBT or ca$h assistance this month that is).

    In all seriousness, there’s so many more of these stories than there are of Police brutality and corruption. If only the media could pull there heads from their rectums every once in a while more stuff like this would get air time. Hopefully compassion and American values return to popularity so at least these dipshits will show it for the ratings and we get to see it SOME how.

    Awesome post about an amazingly compassionate act that not only developed the rapport and trust of the community they protect, but also took the life of an innocent, suffering child and gave him the chance to forget the pain and fear for just a little while. It doesn’t sound like much, but it truly is a monumental display of what Law Enforcement is really all about: community and compassion.

    BZ Sheriff! This nation needs more like you!

  3. 3
    LCBrendan growls and barks:

    Crunchie

    No one is saying all cops are bad, I come from a family of cops.

    But there is no excusing this

    Unarmed man shot in the back

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1173602/GRAPHIC-Charleston-cop-fatally-shoots-man-runs-away.html

    or this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI

    Unarmed man shot several times

    Or the man who was beaten to death in a jail cell

    Or the MULTIPLE deaths in “Sheriff Joe”s” custody

    Or this

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/grand-jury-finds-police-shooting-unjustified-district-attorney-refuses-prosecute/

    The Santa Fe police originally claimed that Mendez shot at the officers, however they later admitted this to be false and that he had been unarmed.

    The department also claimed that when the officers tried to get Mendez out of his vehicle, he backed up and hit a police car, almost running down officers and drove toward them before they fired.

    This claim was also proven to be false after a dash-cam video was released showing that the officers fired six shots into the vehicle as Mendez is driving away from and not towards the officers.

    Oh this one is even better

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-sheriffs-indictments-austrian-consul-20131209-story.html

    When the consul requested to speak to a supervisor about her husband’s arrest, she too was placed in handcuffs and arrested, even though she had committed no crime and would have been immune from prosecution, the indictment said.

    A consul, Crunchie, is a senior diplomat with a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT whom you do not even touch without permission. You sure as hell dont arrest someone when they have committed no crime. That, btw, is whats known in diplomatic circles as a major “whoopsie”. How would you like it if a US government official was arrested and detained for no reason and held in an Aussie jail?

    We dont do that..wanna know why? Our cops went to school and know what a consul is. They also know that if they ever did this, they’d be on the unemployment line so fast their heads would spin. You do not EVER lay hands on a diplomatic official.

    The police do a dangerous, thankless job, no one argues that

    BUT NO COP IN THIS FUCKING WORLD HAS THE RIGHT TO SHOOT FIRST AND NOT BOTHER WITH ASKING QUESTIONS

    You have some trigger happy, brutal, thuggish cops who should not have a badge or a gun.

  4. 4

    LCBrendan says:

    No one is saying all cops are bad

    Actually Brendan, yeah there are a lot of people saying exactly that, regardless of how justified an act by police is, there are people who will automatically default to

    trigger happy, brutal, thuggish cops who should not have a badge or a gun.

    There is a well orchestrated war against cops right now in this country where neo-Marxist and race-baiting agitators are using the ignorance of the general public to fuel anti-police sentiment. And when I say ignorance I’m not saying that as a pejorative, just the simple fact that people are shown a five second video clip with no full background or context, no full facts, and hear the words “unarmed”., “teen” and “SHOT DEAD” The headlines to the videos tell it all,

    Shock Video: Teen Boy Shot and Killed by Cop for Flashing Headlights and Flexing Rights

    Shot for flashing his light!?! The HORROR! POLICE STATE!! ATTICA! ATTICA!

    When you watch the video though the kid refuses to cooperate, refuses to present a driver’s license, which in Texas is a misdemeanor. Cop proceeds with the arrest, kid resists and is tased, and then what you don’t see is the kid turn and jump the cop. What you’re not told is that the kid is an MMA fighter and rather quickly is able to get the cop on the ground and starts to pound his head into the blacktop. The cop, losing consciousness, is able to get off some shots, stopping the attack. I can’t find them now but I saw the photos of the cop’s injuries, he was messed up pretty bad. Legally and morally justified use of force to defend himself from death or serious bodily harm. Quite a bit different from the headline. A simple traffic stop that would have resulted with a warning, now the kid is dead because he has been told that cops are all “brutal thugs” and that he can get on Youtube and be famous. This particular kid had actually bragged to his friends that he was going to get video of a cop being “an asshole”.

    Or this one;
    Man Asks Cop Nicely to Stop Blocking Traffic, So the Cop Beat Him and Stomped his Head
    The video of course only starts once the situation that escalated to the arrest is over and all we see is the deputy trying to get control of the subject. He’s attempting to pull the mans arm behind him so that he can begin handcuffing him. The man is resisting by refusing to place his arm behind him. Now, it’s not pretty, but the blows to the torso and the kick to the head are effective techniques to break the muscular resistance and allow the deputy to get the subjects arm behind his back, or into a better position to apply a wrist lock and gain control of the arm, thus negating the need for further force. Not pretty, but tactically, procedurally, and legally sound. But what I want you to pay special attention to is the deputy who approaches the man who is filming the scene. The deputy says at 2:31 “I don’t mind you filming us, but please don’t interrupt us with your comments OK.” Note two things, 1, he was NOT told to stop filming, 2, the deputy asked him not to interrupt with the comments. Reason for that is scene and subject safety. The cameraman could intentionally or inadvertently encourage the subject to continue resisting the officers. The arrest has been made, the subject is in handcuffs, situation has deescalated. They want to keep it that way. Reasonable enough right? Well, at 4:32 the cameraman says that he was told not to video tape it, and at 5:10 he says that he wants to report the deputy. How will that headline read? “Man told to stop videoing POLICE BRUTALITY!”

    Now as to your examples; The Charleston cop is in prison right now because that shooting was ruled unjustified, and it wasn’t the video that did it, it was the IA investigation. Even having said that, there is a lot of back story to that one too. The subject had fought the cop and been tased with no effect, he took the taser and tried to use it on the cop. The cop overreacted and was in the wrong, but he was far from a brutal thug who put his badge on that day and thought to himself “Who can I go out and kill today.”

    The Sante Fe incident was clearly justified. Attempted murder using the vehicle as a weapon. The officers engaged a still viable threat to their safety and the safety of others. LCBrendan says:

    police originally claimed that Mendez shot at the officers, however they later admitted this to be false and that he had been unarmed.

    At what point in the investigation was this claimed? By which officer? What did he see and hear and where was he during the incident? Was his claim corroborated by all the other offices on scene? At what point did the investigators determine the subject hadn’t fired at the officers? These are all valid questions raised by that statement. The sentence is worded to make it appear that the officers had lied and orchestrated some sort of cover up. To me it just sounds like the natural evolution of an investigation. That’s why they have them, to investigate and sort out all the details. LCBrendan says:

    The department also claimed that when the officers tried to get Mendez out of his vehicle, he backed up and hit a police car, almost running down officers and drove toward them before they fired.

    This claim was also proven to be false after a dash-cam video was released showing that the officers fired six shots into the vehicle as Mendez is driving away from and not towards the officers.

    Not false at all, that’s exactly what the video shows. And how many rounds total were fired and at what point. The audio is either low quality or absent but it seems to me like there were some shots fired before the vehicle was driving away as well. But it really doesn’t matter because again this shooting was justified from what little video and details there are. But to say that that claim was later proved false again is an attempt to portray a deliberate deception. The fact that the clip cuts away to the more dramatic shot of the SUV striking the cruiser doesn’t help. That cruiser’s camera angle was useless right then. It doesn’t show what the officers saw, where they were in relation to the vehicle, or who was beyond the vehicle etc ad nauseum. It does however cut away from the angle that does show what we need to see, the other cruiser, at a crucial point. This was in total maybe 4 seconds of that incident from only two cameras, the important one chopped down for a dramatic, but useless view. I have no idea about the way the NM grand jury system works or the other evidence that they and the DA saw, so I will do the responsible thing and not comment on it. But as to Garner, it doesn’t apply here. The officers were not shooting to stop a fleeing felon, they were shooting to stop an ongoing threat to themselves and to the general public. The probable cause that he was threat had been just exhibited in spades.

    LCBrendan says:

    Unarmed man shot several times

    And…? What?

    LCBrendan says:

    Or the man who was beaten to death in a jail cell

    By whom? And how? A man jumps a jail officer, the officer strikes him in the head, man falls back and smashes his head on a concrete bench. “Cop beats an UNARMED man to DEATH”! Make him a black teen and really stir up the hate. LCBrendan says:

    Or the MULTIPLE deaths in “Sheriff Joe”s” custody

    People die in jail all the time, heart attacks, the twenty grams of meth the swallowed an hour before when they were arrested, Bubba shanks them because their ass wasn’t clean enough when he got horny. Any evidence Sheriff Arpaio ordered them to be executed? And what’s MULTIPLE? Two, three, a hundred, five thousand?

    The Young Turks ain’t exactly the best place to go for objective evaluation of police OIS’s. You could better macroenomic advice from the Kos Kiddies. That dumb ass Cenk sums up their attitude when he says “They just can’t wait to go to their guns”.
    I actually read a very long investigation into that shooting once back after it had initially happened. I can’t remember the intricate details but there was a ton of background details involved in that one. If I could remember it all I would comment more on it but I do remember that the shooting was justified and all involved returned no bills. One quick note though, dumb bitch at TYT makes the assertion that he was “just a homeless” man, like that sanctifies him or something and makes him capable of no harm at all. I’ll tell from personal experience, homeless people can often be the most dangerous and erratic people you will ever encounter.

    LCBrendan says:

    When the consul requested to speak to a supervisor about her husband’s arrest, she too was placed in handcuffs and arrested, even though she had committed no crime and would have been immune from prosecution, the indictment said.

    I need some major qualifiers to that sentence. Was her “request” to speak to a supervisor a violent hissy fit where she was screaming, spewing spittle, and threatening people? Cause I’ve never, ever, ever seen that type of behavior, especially not from a consul with diplomatic credentials. BTW, in order for them to receive the benefits of that diplomatic immunity they must present their State Department issued credentials. It however is not a license to commit whatever crime they damned well please. Consuls can be arrested, the immunity comes into play afterwards. But even so, there isn’t enough detail in that snippet to make an honest and fair assessment.

    LCBrendan says:

    BUT NO COP IN THIS FUCKING WORLD HAS THE RIGHT TO SHOOT FIRST AND NOT BOTHER WITH ASKING QUESTIONS

    Really? What questions should these guys have asked?

    Because after all, the bad guys never just shoot first.

    Nobody has the right to make slanderous accusations that can lead to more on duty deaths of cops without having all the facts and at least a smidgen of knowledge about the dynamics of use of force.

  5. 5

    LCBrendan says:

    No one is saying all cops are bad

    But no one is remembering that they’re good too, which was the point of the video.

  6. 6
    Special Ed growls and barks:

    Freekin’ cops, right? Ya hate ’em? Gaah!!

    Until, you know, you need them … or whatever … um …